Evolution Lesson

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
A thread for creationists that want questions answered about evolution, or to learn more about it, as well as about biology in general. The questions should be directed as to not try to get evolution compared with creationism, but I doubt people will go along with that for very long.

Start with the list of imaginary single celled organisms dreamed in the story of endosymbiosis -- an amazing wonderland for popping out eukaryotes in true miracle-working-saltations that might wondrously be the work of non-existant prokaryotic cells.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Start with the list of imaginary single celled organisms dreamed in the story of endosymbiosis -- an amazing wonderland for popping out eukaryotes in true miracle-working-saltations that might wondrously be the work of non-existant prokaryotic cells.
Yes, if that hypothesis can be verified it would really be an amazing demonstration of divine providence.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Still it would always have been explainable before the interpretation for the theory of evolution came along.
'God-did-it' isn't an explanation - it provides no information about, no understanding of, and no mechanism for, the observed phenomena, it doesn't integrate with existing knowledge, it raises unanswerable questions, and it invokes the inexplicable; IOW it's just a label for not having an explanation.

As I've said before in these forums, if you can find one explanatory criterion in which the 'God-did-it' hypothesis is better than the 'It's Magic!' hypothesis, I'll concede that it's not the joint-worst 'explanation' possible.

It is another way in which it is being looked at, not really falsifiable either.
Not for nothing is evolution the foundation of biology - it is falsifiable in a multitude of ways in a multitude of different fields - including genetics, biochemistry, developmental biology, comparative anatomy, phylogenetics, biogeography, palaeontology, mathematical modelling & simulation, selection studies - artificial and natural, adaptation & speciation studies, population dynamics - each of which has multiple sub-fields. That's why biologists are so confident in it - after 150 years of development into all these fields, all are still consistent with the core theory.

...according to Darwin there would not be such gaps to leave doubt to any when so many millions of fossils were available to show sequences.
Citation?

What he actually said was:
"I look at the natural geological record, as history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved, and of each page, only here and there a few lines."
 
Upvote 0

FredVB

Regular Member
Mar 11, 2010
4,507
921
America
Visit site
✟265,191.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
FredVB said:
Sequences of fossil creatures lined up to show sequence of evolution seems to be connecting dots for a picture where a pattern is perceived, to me, when it is our tendency to see patterns, and we draw conclusions from patterns we see. With millions of fossils now available is there even one case where there is a sequence shown that each species evolved right from the preceding one, one after the other, going far enough to reach another separate category, say, for an arbitrary amount to determine, a separate family? If there is anything from speciation, which I do expect, reaching beyond that from species to species to a separate category, even what would get called a separate family, that can be shown, I would like to see that, because I have not. I post here to see if there is any case of that from all the fossils that there are. If there is, certainly there was diversification from another group continuing, that would make sense. If both are shown fine, but is there even one line in sequence that can be shown?"

In what I have read in works on the subjects that are with the evolutionary perspective species, and genera, are discussed as lasting over some amount of time and not further, including the abstract that was linked to for me in another response. Of course the criteria of reproductive gene pools cannot be applied, but differentiated forms are expected, just as reproductive gene pools would not be so useful if they were not associated with any differentiated forms, different species are understood from that. And so it is understood that species are survived by other species in their place. Is it sequential for them? Maybe so. And genera are survived by other genera. And families are survived by other families. Are they all sequential, in any case that can be shown with it depicted? That is something I would like seeing, to understand anything differently.

I did not see it showing me there were examples of sequential species to separate genera to separate families. And I don't want to go by works either that may show me where I am wrong but can't know that. I would just want to see something for it here, where I ask, and not a sequence of very different forms being shown in a sequence.

There is corroboration if it can be disregarded that only gaps are found throughout where any sequences are shown, so that evolution to another family of species can't be shown, and there is really nothing adequately showing there is no God involved. I won't bother trying to have those of you who are not believers to believe there is God, I do not think I can do that and it might not be possible to happen at all. But you have nothing for thinking you might show God was not there doing anything. There are mysteries we cannot understand, believers understand why that is, and those of you saying there is basis to say things explain themselves without God cannot show it in all things, there all the mysteries where you would still say you don't know, and you still won't, while God is dismissed, and it is not credible to hear that faith in God is not corroborated. What I see for God's work is just that God is organized in the creation, using what works well many times in different creatures, so it won't mean to me that this only corroborates evolution with no Creator.

Still it would always have been explainable before the interpretation for the theory of evolution came along. It is another way in which it is being looked at, not really falsifiable either. It is just not going to consider that God would be as organized and consistent with creatures made in creation, which then shows in many ways. It is not different just because the fossils were not known earlier. Yet according to Darwin there would not be such gaps to leave doubt to any when so many millions of fossils were available to show sequences. But fossils bundle up around points, and connections to others is assumed, such that there have been punctuated equilibrium and other proposals given to explain this evidence in evolution.

I mainly see atheist posters join in response, what is it about any Christian joining other atheists to argue against another Christian? Is there the right perspective leading to that, to be persuading another those saying God is not needed in such things are right?

Speedwell said:
It is in reaction to the Big Lie of creationism propounded by the founder of modern creationism, Henry Morris: "The purpose of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God." That kind of conspiratorial thinking ill befits any Christian. The theory of evolution is merely a scientific theory like any other, dealing with natural phenomena like any other. To complain that it says "God is not needed" is no more justified than to make the same complaint about any other scientific theory--which I notice you are not doing. God is "not needed" in thermodynamics, electromagnetism or nuclear physics. Why are you not complaining about that?

I do not see those not believing coming to argue with those who say they have their basis for believing in God saying God is not needed in thermodynamics, electromagnetism, or nuclear physics. Those in themselves are not basis for understanding how evolution of all organisms from earlier organisms in common would happen.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
'God-did-it' isn't an explanation - it provides no information about, no understanding of, and no mechanism for, the observed phenomena, it doesn't integrate with existing knowledge, it raises unanswerable questions, and it invokes the inexplicable; IOW it's just a label for not having an explanation.

As I've said before in these forums, if you can find one explanatory criterion in which the 'God-did-it' hypothesis is better than the 'It's Magic!' hypothesis, I'll concede that it's not the joint-worst 'explanation' possible.

What he actually said was:
"I look at the natural geological record, as history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved, and of each page, only here and there a few lines."​

That "God did it" is the explanation when there is none ever given for the universe coming into existence, when there is nothing else offered as explanation other than it is an unknowable mystery, that is no better than saying "It's magic". God is anyway showing the explanation of essential and necessary existence, which there is nothing else shown with any sureness for that.

What Darwin said there is no longer the case, still, and more should be available to show more definitely evolution from one form to another, that I would see if shown.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I do not see those not believing coming to argue with those who say they have their basis for believing in God saying God is not needed in thermodynamics, electromagnetism, or nuclear physics. Those in themselves are not basis for understanding how evolution of all organisms from earlier organisms in common would happen.
No, it's a rebuttal to the assertion that the theory of evolution denies God's authorship of our being.



That "God did it" is the explanation when there is none ever given for the universe coming into existence, when there is nothing else offered as explanation other than it is an unknowable mystery, that is no better than saying "It's magic". God is anyway showing the explanation of essential and necessary existence, which there is nothing else shown with any sureness for that.
Whether "God did it" or not is a separate question from whether there will ever be a scientific explanation of how our universe came into being.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
That "God did it" is the explanation when there is none ever given for the universe coming into existence, when there is nothing else offered as explanation other than it is an unknowable mystery, that is no better than saying "It's magic".
So give me one explanatory criterion that makes "God did it" a better explanation than "It's magic".

God is anyway showing the explanation of essential and necessary existence, which there is nothing else shown with any sureness for that.
I think you'll find that the 'essential and necessary existence' argument is used as an explanation for God, rather than vice-versa. The universe itself serves just as well and is more parsimonious.

What Darwin said there is no longer the case, still, and more should be available to show more definitely evolution from one form to another, that I would see if shown.
That Darwin quote simply contradicts your claim about him - I notice that you haven't even tried to support that claim.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,221
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,952.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That is interesting. If they show continuous evolution from one species to another that would show enough change for them to be different enough to not be grouped in the same family, from species to species, I would like seeing such fossils showing that evidence.

You could check out the elephant sequence. The fossils are similar enough that you can tell they're all elephants, but different enough that it's clear that speciation has occurred, such as the difference between paleomastodon and a whoolly mammoth.

Evolutionary Transitions in the Fossil Record of Terrestrial Hoofed Mammals


Both being elephants of a sequence, yet they're much More different from one another then even two different species of elephant today.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: pitabread
Upvote 0

MIDutch

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2020
2,421
3,383
67
Detroit
✟75,674.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
The massive amount of evidence in support of evolution and the ToE has been around and growing for over 150 years. I've been "debating" creationists for more or less 20+ years on various "debate" boards. It amazes and saddens me that creationists are still using the same old "arguments" and falsehoods that I've been reading on this thread.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
You could check out the elephant sequence. The fossils are similar enough that you can tell they're all elephants, but different enough that it's clear that speciation has occurred, such as the difference between paleomastodon and a whoolly mammoth.

Evolutionary Transitions in the Fossil Record of Terrestrial Hoofed Mammals


Both being elephants of a sequence, yet they're much More different from one another then even two different species of elephant today.
Yeah, but they're still elephants. ;)
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,521
9,489
✟236,303.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
The massive amount of evidence in support of evolution and the ToE has been around and growing for over 150 years. I've been "debating" creationists for more or less 20+ years on various "debate" boards. It amazes and saddens me that creationists are still using the same old "arguments" and falsehoods that I've been reading on this thread.
Since they are against evolution you can hardly expect their arguments to evolve. :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FredVB

Regular Member
Mar 11, 2010
4,507
921
America
Visit site
✟265,191.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
FredVB said:
I do not see those not believing coming to argue with those who say they have their basis for believing in God saying God is not needed in thermodynamics, electromagnetism, or nuclear physics. Those in themselves are not basis for understanding how evolution of all organisms from earlier organisms in common would happen.

That "God did it" is the explanation when there is none ever given for the universe coming into existence, when there is nothing else offered as explanation other than it is an unknowable mystery, that is no better than saying "It's magic". God is anyway showing the explanation of essential and necessary existence, which there is nothing else shown with any sureness for that.

What Darwin said there is no longer the case, still, and more should be available to show more definitely evolution from one form to another, that I would see if shown.

Speedwell said:
No, it's a rebuttal to the assertion that the theory of evolution denies God's authorship of our being.

Whether "God did it" or not is a separate question from whether there will ever be a scientific explanation of how our universe came into being.

Are you not following others response to me? That is exactly what they do want to question.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
So give me one explanatory criterion that makes "God did it" a better explanation than "It's magic".

I think you'll find that the 'essential and necessary existence' argument is used as an explanation for God, rather than vice-versa. The universe itself serves just as well and is more parsimonious.

That Darwin quote simply contradicts your claim about him - I notice that you haven't even tried to support that claim.

Do you require an apology really? I see others I communicate with say something wrong all the time, but don't demand an apology. All right, I do not know that Darwin said exactly what I had said he did, I read that somewhere, and remembered it that way. What he did say still leads to that expectation.

If the universe is the necessary existence, as you claim it can be, you should be able to show how it fits that, with being necessarily existing that it is everywhere, and unable to be destroyed, being eternal, and not being corruptible. Real necessary existence could still have creative power without limit and able to have it organized.

KomatiiteBIF said:
You could check out the elephant sequence. The fossils are similar enough that you can tell they're all elephants, but different enough that it's clear that speciation has occurred, such as the difference between paleomastodon and a whoolly mammoth.

Evolutionary Transitions in the Fossil Record of Terrestrial Hoofed Mammals

Both being elephants of a sequence, yet they're much More different from one another then even two different species of elephant today.

So you are calling all proboscideans elephants. But they are not all a family.

It is thought that modern African and Indian elephants may have originated in Asia but the earliest fossils of the Proboscidea order have been found in Africa. The oldest, Moeritherium, which lived about 35-50 million years ago during what is called the Eocene period was named after Egypt's Lake Moeris where its remains were found. About a metre tall, Moeritherium was relatively small with no trunk. It had enlarged incisor teeth (like small elephant tusks) in both jaws. Living in shallow water, it is thought to have been amphibious. It is not a direct ancestor of elephants, as it has no known descendants.

evolving-ellies.jpg


Later Proboscidean fossils show that, although larger than Moeritherium, the early Palaeomastodonand Gomphotherium bore little resemblance to modern elephants. However, as the Proboscidean species evolved, the animals grew larger with longer limbs, their skull, teeth and tusk size increased and a mobile trunk developed. Primelephas and the extinct relatives of modern elephants, Mammuthus(mammoths), Mammut (mastodons), Anancus and Stegodon were all large animals with pillar-like legs, tusks and an extended flexible nose.
South African National Parks - SANParks - Official Website - Accommodation, Activities, Prices, Reservations

The best that can be stated is what is thought to have happened.
elephant-evolution.jpg

800px-Phylogenetic_Tree_of_Elephants_and_Mammoths_2010.png


There is not agreement for consistency which way evolution has happened, that really is not persuasive as example showing species evolved from one another.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,521
9,489
✟236,303.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Do you require an apology really? I see others I communicate with say something wrong all the time, but don't demand an apology. All right, I do not know that Darwin said exactly what I had said he did, I read that somewhere, and remembered it that way. What he did say still leads to that expectation.
This is just a thought Fred, intended to defuse, not fuel disagreement. @FrumiousBandersnatch did not ask for an apology, implicitly or explicitly. He noted that you had not attempted to support an earlier claim. When a claim is refuted in a discussion thread then internet etiquette (and common courtesy) require one either acknowledges the error, or offers support for the claim. Frumious was just politely reminding you of that - something rather remote from demanding an apology.
I hope that helps rather than hinders.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
If the universe is the necessary existence, as you claim it can be, you should be able to show how it fits that, with being necessarily existing that it is everywhere, and unable to be destroyed, being eternal, and not being corruptible. Real necessary existence could still have creative power without limit and able to have it organized.
Or give it the capacity to self-organize.



So you are calling all proboscides elephants. But they are not all a family.
Probocidae are an order, not a family.

It is thought that modern African and Indian elephants may have originated in Asia but the earliest fossils of the Proboscidea order have been found in Africa. The oldest, Moeritherium, which lived about 35-50 million years ago during what is called the Eocene period was named after Egypt's Lake Moeris where its remains were found. About a metre tall, Moeritherium was relatively small with no trunk. It had enlarged incisor teeth (like small elephant tusks) in both jaws. Living in shallow water, it is thought to have been amphibious. It is not a direct ancestor of elephants, as it has no known descendants.

evolving-ellies.jpg


Later Proboscidean fossils show that, although larger than Moeritherium, the early Palaeomastodonand Gomphotherium bore little resemblance to modern elephants. However, as the Proboscidean species evolved, the animals grew larger with longer limbs, their skull, teeth and tusk size increased and a mobile trunk developed. Primelephas and the extinct relatives of modern elephants, Mammuthus(mammoths), Mammut (mastodons), Anancus and Stegodon were all large animals with pillar-like legs, tusks and an extended flexible nose.
South African National Parks - SANParks - Official Website - Accommodation, Activities, Prices, Reservations

The best that can be stated is what is thought to have happened.
View attachment 294257
View attachment 294258

There is not agreement for consistency which way evolution has happened, that really is not persuasive as example showing species evolved from one another.
How would you explain these fossils?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Do you require an apology really? I see others I communicate with say something wrong all the time, but don't demand an apology.
No; what makes you think I require or demand an apology? Are you sure you're asking the right person?

All right, I do not know that Darwin said exactly what I had said he did, I read that somewhere, and remembered it that way. What he did say still leads to that expectation.
OK. But I think the actual quote from Darwin that I posted suggests that you misremembered or misinterpreted what you read. It's quite possible that Darwin changed his mind, but until you can support what you think he said, I'm sceptical.

If the universe is the necessary existence, as you claim it can be, you should be able to show how it fits that, with being necessarily existing that it is everywhere, and unable to be destroyed, being eternal, and not being corruptible.
Not really. That the universe exists is evidence enough - it exists, and, by definition, it is all that there is; the concept of its destruction is meaningless - how could it be destroyed? what would that mean?

What do you mean by 'not corruptible'?

If it exists in time, then it is eternal (it can't come from nothing, and it can't become nothing); if time exists within it (i.e. an internal property), then the question is meaningless, it just 'is' (exists).

Real necessary existence could still have creative power without limit and able to have it organized.
What is 'real' necessary existence - how could there be necessary existence that isn't real? isn't that an oxymoron?

Why do you think it could have 'creative power without limit'?

You can make whatever claims you like, but without a cogent argument, they're just empty claims.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

FredVB

Regular Member
Mar 11, 2010
4,507
921
America
Visit site
✟265,191.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Speedwell said:
Or give it the capacity to self-organize.

Probocidae are an order, not a family.

How would you explain these fossils?

So is it that you mean the necessary existence is this universe with its own ability to self-organize, and no need of anything else for that?

I know that Proboscideans are not one family already. I am not one here calling them all elephants. My question remains, where are species all shown leading to the family of Elephantidae? These show what appear to me to be like connecting dots. I see nothing conclusive for connection of one to another up to Elephantidae. My point that there is not agreement does not mean I have explanation for how they are to be organized.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
I think the actual quote from Darwin that I posted suggests that you misremembered or misinterpreted what you read. It's quite possible that Darwin changed his mind, but until you can support what you think he said, I'm sceptical.

Not really. That the universe exists is evidence enough - it exists, and, by definition, it is all that there is; the concept of its destruction is meaningless - how could it be destroyed? what would that mean?

What do you mean by 'not corruptible'?

If it exists in time, then it is eternal (it can't come from nothing, and it can't become nothing); if time exists within it (i.e. an internal property), then the question is meaningless, it just 'is' (exists).

What is 'real' necessary existence - how could there be necessary existence that isn't real? isn't that an oxymoron?

Why do you think it could have 'creative power without limit'?

You can make whatever claims you like, but without a cogent argument, they're just empty claims.

I will watch out for what I see said of what Charles Darwin said, I think now I would take anything relevant to save as a text.

The universe existing is evidence? It had a beginning, generally agreed on. Its end is conceived, proposed as either a big crunch as it collapses, or, more generally now, it dissipating ultimately, with decaying. That would not have it being necessary existence.

Real necessary existence is beyond your capacity to understand it. Necessary existence always exists still, and is imperishable. That is not guessing, that is definitional for what necessary existence means, even when we don't know more about it. Real is opposed to what is proposed to be necessary existence that falls short. If is other than the universe, necessary existence created the universe, and necessary existence is still unlimited.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
So is it that you mean the necessary existence is this universe with its own ability to self-organize, and no need of anything else for that?
If God grants His creation the ability to self-organize, what need is there for more?
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
The universe existing is evidence? It had a beginning, generally agreed on.
If cosmologists say it had a beginning, what they mean is that the universe as we know it had a beginning. We simply don't know what happened prior to a very short time after the big bang. I think the consensus is that the big bang was an event in some prior universe or multiverse. There are a number of hypotheses compatible with fundamental physics that could plausibly produce a universe like ours.

Its end is conceived, proposed as either a big crunch as it collapses, or, more generally now, it dissipating ultimately, with decaying. That would not have it being necessary existence.
The current projection is heat-death (thermodynamic equilibrium). But whether there is heat-death, or a 'big crunch' or a 'big rip', there's no reason why universe should not continue indefinitely - although not necessarily in the same form. By analogy, when you burn a log, its matter & energy change form, they don't disappear.

What is your argument that the universe does not have necessary existence? it exists, it's not contingent, so it necessarily exists; IOW 'all that is' necessarily exists.

Real necessary existence is beyond your capacity to understand it.
Yeah; that's neither a description, an explanation, nor an argument, it's just a pompous empty claim.

Necessary existence always exists still, and is imperishable.
The universe 'always exists still' (odd phrasing!). But what do you mean by 'imperishable'? - I asked you earlier what you meant by 'incorruptible' and you haven't yet answered.

That is not guessing, that is definitional for what necessary existence means, even when we don't know more about it.
You seem to have embellished necessary existence from the simple idea that something has it if it is not contingent or its non-existence would be impossible, with other, ill-defined, properties.

Real is opposed to what is proposed to be necessary existence that falls short.
It seems to me that either existence is necessary or it isn't... in what way does or could 'necessary existence' fall short of 'real necessary existence'?

If is other than the universe, necessary existence created the universe, and necessary existence is still unlimited.
That is incoherent. You could say that the universe as we know it was created and will cease to exist, but that's like saying the Taj Mahal was created and will cease to exist; we know that the universe we are familiar with is a just a spatially and temporally finite part of the greater universe. A universe that is eternal, in some form or other, is consistent with current physics and current observations.
 
Upvote 0

FredVB

Regular Member
Mar 11, 2010
4,507
921
America
Visit site
✟265,191.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
FredVB said:
So is it that you mean the necessary existence is this universe with its own ability to self-organize, and no need of anything else for that?

My question remains, where are species all shown leading to the family of Elephantidae?

The universe existing is evidence? It had a beginning, generally agreed on. Its end is conceived, proposed as either a big crunch as it collapses, or, more generally now, it dissipating ultimately, with decaying. That would not have it being necessary existence.

Real necessary existence is beyond your capacity to understand it. Necessary existence always exists still, and is imperishable. That is not guessing, that is definitional for what necessary existence means, even when we don't know more about it. Real is opposed to what is proposed to be necessary existence that falls short. If is other than the universe, necessary existence created the universe, and necessary existence is still unlimited.

Speedwell said:
If God grants His creation the ability to self-organize, what need is there for more?

Indeed is there any need of God at all? I have seen you say elsewhere what suggests that you believe in God, but with this, why if there is no need of God at all?

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
If cosmologists say it had a beginning, what they mean is that the universe as we know it had a beginning. We simply don't know what happened prior to a very short time after the big bang. I think the consensus is that the big bang was an event in some prior universe or multiverse. There are a number of hypotheses compatible with fundamental physics that could plausibly produce a universe like ours.

The current projection is heat-death (thermodynamic equilibrium). But whether there is heat-death, or a 'big crunch' or a 'big rip', there's no reason why universe should not continue indefinitely - although not necessarily in the same form. By analogy, when you burn a log, its matter & energy change form, they don't disappear.

What is your argument that the universe does not have necessary existence? it exists, it's not contingent, so it necessarily exists; IOW 'all that is' necessarily exists.

Yeah; that's neither a description, an explanation, nor an argument, it's just a pompous empty claim.

The universe 'always exists still' (odd phrasing!). But what do you mean by 'imperishable'? - I asked you earlier what you meant by 'incorruptible' and you haven't yet answered.

You seem to have embellished necessary existence from the simple idea that something has it if it is not contingent or its non-existence would be impossible, with other, ill-defined, properties.

It seems to me that either existence is necessary or it isn't... in what way does or could 'necessary existence' fall short of 'real necessary existence'?

That is incoherent. You could say that the universe as we know it was created and will cease to exist, but that's like saying the Taj Mahal was created and will cease to exist; we know that the universe we are familiar with is a just a spatially and temporally finite part of the greater universe. A universe that is eternal, in some form or other, is consistent with current physics and current observations.

What existed before the universe is not the universe. It is still an appeal to whatever is beyond the universe, so the universe is not the necessary existence. Whatever you say it is, that is still undetectable. And it is all any of what could be.

You do not show how it continues on without end, when it would not be in the same form. What could it be? According to what I find is said about it, it would not be the universe anymore, after some great length of time, though it is a matter of different projections. This really does not characterize necessary existence. I did not think I have to spell out the logic. What necessarily must exist would then always exist, that way. The universe itself is contingent, if there was a big bang at the beginning, that shows it.

It is not pompous to say you would not understand more, that is, unless I said I do understand more of that. I don't understand more either, I say that what can be known of necessary existence, which is unlimited, is that it goes beyond what we know, and we can only know that much, from the logic that there is necessary existence. If there was nothing that is necessary existence, there would not be anything at all, there would never be reason for anything if there was not already existence. The existence there always was is that necessary existence, without limit. And being other than the universe, necessary existence has capacity to create, being unlimited, any capacity of necessary existence is without limit. That is spelling out the logic I would think could be understood, hopefully that will be adequate. If you call the universe necessary existence, it falls short of that, it is then not the real necessary existence.

You want to know what imperishable means? It is characterizing what would never perish. The universe itself is not claimed to be characterized with that, it would not then last as the universe, you still do not show anyway what else it would still be. I guess I would have meant the same thing with incorruptible.

And how I described it is not embellishing it, what was said was definitional of necessary existence, what is not with such characteristic of existing necessarily is not necessary existence.

If you conceive that there is a greater universe that is beyond this universe and is eternally existing, with no cause beyond it as it explains itself, necessarily existing, how is that, and what would it be?
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
What existed before the universe is not the universe. It is still an appeal to whatever is beyond the universe, so the universe is not the necessary existence. Whatever you say it is, that is still undetectable. And it is all any of what could be.
That's just semantics - it doesn't matter what you call it, I'm referring to 'all there is', commonly called the universe, the multiverse, the metaverse, the greater universe, or what-have-you. I'm suggesting that the observable universe is just a new phase of a prior physical state.

It is 'necessarily existent' because it exists - it is all that exists, i.e. it can't not be, its existence is not contingent. 'Nothing' can't exist, there can't be nothing; 'nothing' is the concept of negation, not a state of existence.

You do not show how it continues on without end, when it would not be in the same form. What could it be? According to what I find is said about it, it would not be the universe anymore, after some great length of time, though it is a matter of different projections. This really does not characterize necessary existence.
How it changes is irrelevant, it will still be the universe (all that is). Immediately after the big bang, the universe was in a completely different form to what we see today, even the fundamental forces were different. In the far future of heat-death, it will be more like the universe of today than was the universe immediately after the big bang.

I did not think I have to spell out the logic. What necessarily must exist would then always exist, that way. The universe itself is contingent, if there was a big bang at the beginning, that shows it.
As I said, I'm suggesting that the big bang was only the beginning of the particular phase of the universe we find ourselves in - just as your birth was only the beginning of the particular phase of your lineage that you find yourself in.

It is not pompous to say you would not understand more, that is, unless I said I do understand more of that. I don't understand more either, ...
It is pompous (and rude) to say 'X is beyond your capacity to understand it' without providing an explanation of X, and it strains credulity that you would say that if you really meant, 'X is beyond our capacity to understand it'.

Why use the term if you think neither of us has the capacity to understand it?

I say that what can be known of necessary existence, which is unlimited, is that it goes beyond what we know, and we can only know that much, from the logic that there is necessary existence. If there was nothing that is necessary existence, there would not be anything at all, there would never be reason for anything if there was not already existence. The existence there always was is that necessary existence, without limit.
Yep, the universe (as I described above) fits all that very well.

...necessary existence has capacity to create, being unlimited, any capacity of necessary existence is without limit. That is spelling out the logic I would think could be understood, hopefully that will be adequate.
You made this assertion before and I asked you to substantiate it - so far all you've done is repeat it - it is not a logical statement. I've seen a few definitions of necessary existence, but none say anything about capacity to create or 'being unlimited' - if they have a logical connection to necessary existence, you need to make it clear, e.g. "necessary existence implies the capacity to create and being unlimited because... <some explanation>".

You want to know what imperishable means? It is characterizing what would never perish.
So what do you mean by 'perish' in this context?

The universe will not cease to exist in any physical sense, it will either continue expanding indefinitely, becoming ever more empty of matter, or it will undergo another phase transition to a lower energy background state which will continue indefinitely. Either way, it will continue in some form. It can't go away, there's literally nowhere for it to go - it's all there is.

And how I described it is not embellishing it, what was said was definitional of necessary existence, what is not with such characteristic of existing necessarily is not necessary existence.
Please provide a reference for your definition - i.e. one that involves the 'capacity to create' and 'being unlimited'. I'm curious to know your source.

If you conceive that there is a greater universe that is beyond this universe and is eternally existing, with no cause beyond it as it explains itself, necessarily existing, how is that, and what would it be?
Clearly, since it necessarily exists, there is no 'how', it just is; what it is, is the 'greater universe' (if that's the term you prefer - metaverse and multiverse are other options), a physical state following physical laws. That's all that's necessary.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,221
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,952.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Are you not following others response to me? That is exactly what they do want to question.

So you are calling all proboscideans elephants. But they are not all a family.

It is thought that modern African and Indian elephants may have originated in Asia but the earliest fossils of the Proboscidea order have been found in Africa. The oldest, Moeritherium, which lived about 35-50 million years ago during what is called the Eocene period was named after Egypt's Lake Moeris where its remains were found. About a metre tall, Moeritherium was relatively small with no trunk. It had enlarged incisor teeth (like small elephant tusks) in both jaws. Living in shallow water, it is thought to have been amphibious. It is not a direct ancestor of elephants, as it has no known descendants.

evolving-ellies.jpg


Later Proboscidean fossils show that, although larger than Moeritherium, the early Palaeomastodonand Gomphotherium bore little resemblance to modern elephants. However, as the Proboscidean species evolved, the animals grew larger with longer limbs, their skull, teeth and tusk size increased and a mobile trunk developed. Primelephas and the extinct relatives of modern elephants, Mammuthus(mammoths), Mammut (mastodons), Anancus and Stegodon were all large animals with pillar-like legs, tusks and an extended flexible nose.
South African National Parks - SANParks - Official Website - Accommodation, Activities, Prices, Reservations

The best that can be stated is what is thought to have happened.
View attachment 294257
View attachment 294258

There is not agreement for consistency which way evolution has happened, that really is not persuasive as example showing species evolved from one another.

Hm? Your response seems to just be a jumble of random comments.

Why would it matter if elephants originated from Africa or Asia? It wouldn't and doesn't. It's not difficult to fathom the idea that elephants originated in africa.

The rest of your post (to the best that I can gather) baselessly suggests that because transitional species tend to go extinct, that somehow this means that nobody knows if modern elephants evolved from ancestral african elephants. Which is just silly.
 
Upvote 0